Re: EOCred: recognition of credential

+1 on my part as well.

Alexander Jackl
CEO & President, Bardic Systems, Inc.
alex@bardicsystems.com
M: 508.395.2836
O: 401.384.0566
F: 617.812.6020
http://bardicsystems.com

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk> wrote:

> +1 That's the intention.
>
> Phil.
>
> On 18/05/18 13:58, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
> Let's leave the verification of claims, crypto etc, out of it for now.
> Better to focus initially on having a simple-enough, usable, reasonably
> expressive descriptive model that matches existing content and likely
> applications.
>
> Dan
>
> On Fri, 18 May 2018, 13:38 Wes Turner, <wes.turner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> https://github.com/w3c/verifiable-claims
>>
>> - https://www.w3.org/TR/verifiable-claims-use-cases/
>> - https://www.w3.org/TR/verifiable-claims-data-model/
>>
>> On Tuesday, May 15, 2018, Fritz Ray <fritley@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree that the perceived currency depends, but my main gripe was that
>>> accreditation is more than a better recognition, it carries with it a
>>> network effect that recognition doesn't. They are functionally different.
>>> In my mind, Recognition states that my organization accepts this,
>>> Accreditation states that those who recognize my organization (must? have
>>> agreed to?) accept this.
>>>
>>> We can proceed at this point with recognizedBy until there's further
>>> consensus on the mechanics.
>>>
>>> On trust and verifiability, I don't have much to say that isn't already
>>> being covered by Verifiable Claims, JSON Web Signatures and
>>> http://schema.org/EndorseAction.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 8:25 AM Stuart Sutton <stuartasutton@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hmmm. I didn't read either Fritz or Nate's comments as being negative
>>>> in terms of recognizedBy. Nate and Fritz, what do you say? Can we
>>>> proceed at this point with recognizedBy? Fritz in your comments you agreed
>>>> with a subproperty relationship between recognizedBy and a possible future
>>>> accreditedBy. The currency one places in these two related notions is
>>>> relative. While accreditation is certainly important, there are some (like
>>>> one employer) who might well see a credential recognizedBy another employer
>>>> of note as more important than accreditation. So, like so many thing,
>>>> perceived currency depends.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 7:42 AM, Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Stuart,
>>>>>
>>>>> The sense I got arose from comments from Fritz
>>>>> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-eocred-schema/2018Apr/0004.html>
>>>>> [1] about accreditation being more important than recognition, and from Nate
>>>>> Otto
>>>>> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-eocred-schema/2018May/0000.html>
>>>>> [2] about trust and verfiability.  I am not sure how widely these concerns
>>>>> are shared or whether my replies [3
>>>>> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-eocred-schema/2018May/0001.html>]
>>>>> and [4
>>>>> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-eocred-schema/2018Apr/0005.html>]
>>>>> addressed them satisfactorily.
>>>>> If we can clarify those points one way or the other that would be
>>>>> great.
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-eocred-schema/
>>>>> 2018Apr/0004.html
>>>>> 2. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-eocred-schema/
>>>>> 2018May/0000.html
>>>>> 3. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-eocred-schema/
>>>>> 2018May/0001.html
>>>>> 4. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-eocred-schema/
>>>>> 2018Apr/0005.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 15/05/18 14:01, Stuart Sutton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil, I am not so certain that there isn't consensus around the
>>>>> original proposal for a recognizedBy property with a domain of
>>>>> EducationalOccupationalCredential and a range of Organization [1].
>>>>> Just because there is a likelihood that such claims by the owner of a
>>>>> credential might well need to be verified for maximum ease and utility,
>>>>> that doesn't negate the need for a credential provider to be able to make
>>>>> the claim. And, as you rightly note, a new recognizedBy property
>>>>> would be only one of many claims made through other schema.org
>>>>> properties that could benefit from being verifiable. So while agreeing that
>>>>> there needs to be a more general mechanism for handling verifiable claims,
>>>>> first, we need to be able to make such claims and second, its an issue to
>>>>> be solved beyond this property.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since I have heard nothing in opposition to a recognizedBy property
>>>>> itself, I'd say you should, at least for now, call going once, going twice,
>>>>> included. We can always revisit as the full package of properties for a
>>>>> useful EducationalOccupationalCredential comes into view.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/community/eocred-schema/wiki/
>>>>> Show_organizations_that_recognize_an_educational_
>>>>> occupational_credential
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:36 AM, Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, I am getting the sense that there isn't a particularly strong
>>>>>> consensus around how to deal with this issue, so I shall park it for now.
>>>>>> We can reconsider parked issues when we review the proposal we put forward
>>>>>> to schema.org.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03/05/18 11:01, Phil Barker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks Nate, that's interesting about 'endorsements' being claims
>>>>>> that could be verified. I agree that in many use case it will important to
>>>>>> provide evidence or proof of authority for statements like 'This
>>>>>> EOCredential is recognised by X'. (By the way one potential point of
>>>>>> confusion if a driving licence is a credential: in the UK an
>>>>>> endorsement <https://www.gov.uk/penalty-points-endorsements> on a
>>>>>> driving licence indicates the driver has been penalized for some
>>>>>> infringement. Get enough endorsements and you'll be disqualified from
>>>>>> driving.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As a matter of fact I think this issue of verifiability is pertains
>>>>>> to many schema.org statements. If I use schema.org to say that I
>>>>>> work for PJJK Limited, would you believe me? Or that my name is Phil
>>>>>> Barker? Or that I wrote a certain scientific paper, and that I hold the
>>>>>> copyright for it? So I would say that schema.org properties like
>>>>>> worksFor <http://schema.org/worksFor>, name <http://schema.org/name>,
>>>>>> author <http://schema.org/author>, and in fact pretty much every
>>>>>> schema.org property, could be treated as relating to a claim that
>>>>>> requires verification for some use-cases. So I think that a mechanism for
>>>>>> verifiable claims made as statements using schema.org should be a
>>>>>> general one that works across all properties (have a look at how Role
>>>>>> <http://schema.org/Role> provides more information about a
>>>>>> relationship or property for one way of addressing a similar problem).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that providing a mechanism for verifying claims made on the
>>>>>> web is an important thing to do, and I agree that it would be useful to do
>>>>>> this for claims encoded in schema.org, but (as you know) it is a
>>>>>> general (and difficult) problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think it is the problem we are trying to solve with
>>>>>> schema.org *here*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would state our use case as this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A website / email / other text includes the [unverified] statement
>>>>>> that an educational occupational credential is recognized by some relevant
>>>>>> organization. We wish to make that statement more easily processed by
>>>>>> computers through semantic markup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Extension of use case:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The same mark up may be used to provide similar information as
>>>>>> structured data independently of text on a web page or other medium.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does that seem like a reasonable use case to address? Is it useful to
>>>>>> make unverified claims about recognition of credentials machine readable?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If so, is there any improvement to the definition of the recognizedBy
>>>>>> property that would help clarify that the claim to recognition may require
>>>>>> further verification?
>>>>>> Regards, Phil
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 02/05/18 21:14, Nate Otto wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For some extra context/flavor:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In Open Badges, we use the W3C Verifiable Credentials
>>>>>> vocab/methodology to enable 3rd parties to create Endorsements that
>>>>>> describe their recognition of a particular defined Credential. This is
>>>>>> still early days, but in the current version of the OB vocabulary, there is
>>>>>> a property that allows publishers to identify the "endorsements" that have
>>>>>> been awarded to the Credential (or to the Issuer, or to the awarded
>>>>>> instance of the credential).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because each endorsement is separately verifiable, the publisher's
>>>>>> word doesn't need to be trusted when they describe
>>>>>> organizations/individuals who recognize the badge. This means that the
>>>>>> relationship is actually between the (Credential -> Endorsement -> Issuer
>>>>>> of the Endorsement), not directly (Credential -> Issuer of the Endorsement)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we add in a recognizedBy feature in the vocabulary, it might be
>>>>>> useful to define use cases for how this data is published (who is
>>>>>> publishing it, where, and for what audience?) and when/why that published
>>>>>> data should be trusted by consumers. This might yield additional properties
>>>>>> we might need in order to support those use cases, or we might want to go
>>>>>> the Open Badges route of modeling the Endorsement of the credential itself
>>>>>> as an intermediate relationship.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nate
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil Barker <http://people.pjjk.net/phil>.
>>>>>> http://people.pjjk.net/phil
>>>>>> PJJK Limited <https://www.pjjk.co.uk>: technology to enhance
>>>>>> learning; information systems for education.
>>>>>> CETIS LLP <https://www.cetis.org.uk>: a cooperative consultancy for
>>>>>> innovation in education technology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PJJK Limited is registered in Scotland as a private limited company,
>>>>>> number SC569282.
>>>>>> CETIS is a co-operative limited liability partnership, registered in
>>>>>> England number OC399090
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil Barker <http://people.pjjk.net/phil>.
>>>>>> http://people.pjjk.net/phil
>>>>>> PJJK Limited <https://www.pjjk.co.uk>: technology to enhance
>>>>>> learning; information systems for education.
>>>>>> CETIS LLP <https://www.cetis.org.uk>: a cooperative consultancy for
>>>>>> innovation in education technology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PJJK Limited is registered in Scotland as a private limited company,
>>>>>> number SC569282.
>>>>>> CETIS is a co-operative limited liability partnership, registered in
>>>>>> England number OC399090
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil Barker <http://people.pjjk.net/phil>. http://people.pjjk.net/phil
>>>>> PJJK Limited <https://www.pjjk.co.uk>: technology to enhance
>>>>> learning; information systems for education.
>>>>> CETIS LLP <https://www.cetis.org.uk>: a cooperative consultancy for
>>>>> innovation in education technology.
>>>>>
>>>>> PJJK Limited is registered in Scotland as a private limited company,
>>>>> number SC569282.
>>>>> CETIS is a co-operative limited liability partnership, registered in
>>>>> England number OC399090
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Phil Barker <http://people.pjjk.net/phil>. http://people.pjjk.net/phil
> PJJK Limited <https://www.pjjk.co.uk>: technology to enhance learning;
> information systems for education.
> CETIS LLP <https://www.cetis.org.uk>: a cooperative consultancy for
> innovation in education technology.
>
> PJJK Limited is registered in Scotland as a private limited company,
> number SC569282.
> CETIS is a co-operative limited liability partnership, registered in
> England number OC399090
>